HomeMy WebLinkAboutComment Card_Planning and Zoning_7/21/2022 (3)Nilsa Zacarias
Subject: FW: Access Easement and Moratorium- REPLY TO QUESTIONS
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Tequesta P & Z mtg 7-21-22_Staff Memo_JDG
Questions.pdf
From: Jon Griffis <jgriffis@bucdev.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 4:33 PM
To: Nilsa Zacarias <nzacarias@tequesta.org>
Cc: Patti Crisafulli <pacrisafulli@gmail.com>; Susan Panella <panellas@comcast.net>; megrath@bellsouth.net; Edward
Downey <edward@downeypa.com>; Gwen Pitcairn <gwendalynpits@gmail.com>; Paul Durso
<bardowndurso@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Access Easement and Moratorium- REPLY TO QUESTIONS
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
"This Email was sent from an external source. Please be mindful of its content"
Nilsa: I was sent the below email chain regarding questions on the proposed redevelopment of the
300 Beach Rd. property. Accordingly, I am reaching out to you with my questions.
I live at 375 Beach Rd. Apt. 302 (LaMar) and have reviewed the Tequesta P & Z Board Staff Memo
dated 7-21-22 and have several questions (attached) that I would like the Planning & Zoning Board to
address at tomorrow's P & Z meeting. I will be present and understand that the public may request to
speak during the meeting and are limited to 3 minutes per person. As I believe my questions will
exceed the 3 minute timeframe, I am forwarding these in order that the Board can review and
subsequently address them during the public meeting.
Thank you, Jon Griffis
Jonathan D. Griffis
303.981.0600
igriffis@bucdev.com
"Success is not the act of never failing -it is the act of repeatedly getting up"
Village of Tequesta
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting
300 Beach Rd. (The Savoy) Redevelopment Questions
7-21-22
Planning Board: In anticipation of the Planning & Zoning Board (the "Board") meeting
set for July 21. 2022, and pursuant to my review of the Tequesta Planning Staff Memo
dated July 21, 2022, 1 have the following comments and questions regarding the
development of the 300 Beach Rd. Savoy project that I would like the Board to address
at the meeting:
Page 7: The Zoning Review Table (page 7 of the Memo) indicates that the Side Yard
North Setback is in compliance with the zoning regulations. In looking at the survey
completed by Lindberg Land Surveying dated 8-30-21 (page 31 of the Memo), the
existing 300 Beach Rd. building is set back 64.9 `from the north property line (as
measured from the outside edge of the existing building). For the proposed Savoy
building development, the same dated survey shows the exterior wall of the new garage
as a 20' setback from the north property line. As such, it appears that the Savoy building
will significantly reduce the existing view corridors to the beach from the condominium
buildings directly across from the 300 property on the west side of Beach Rd. Is this the
intent and desire of the Board to create these reduced views? In order to mitigate the
negative impact of the proposed building on the view corridors, would the Board
consider requiring larger setbacks similar to the existing building?
Page 10: The developer is requesting a revision to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Map from the VE10 Zone to a proposed AE7 Zone. Please explain the difference in
these two Zones and the impact on the other properties along Beach Rd. Staff is
recommending any Board/City Council approval be based on FEMA issuing formal
approval of the request. Is this the Board's position as well? What happens if FEMA
does not approve the request? Does that mean the project cannot be developed?
Pages 14-16: McMahon Associates, Inc. issued a Technical Memorandum dated
6/15/22 to the Village Planning Department wherein the review and commented on a
number of transportation and traffic issues of the proposed development. Item 2 in their
Memorandum indicated that any new improvement within the SR 707 ROW will require
a permit from FDOT. Has FDOT reviewed the developer's request and provided any
comments as to the possible (or not) issuance of such a permit? What happens if FDOT
does not issue the permit? Will the Board make any approval subject to and conditional
to the issuance of this permit? Does that mean the project cannot be developed?
Page 18-19: A Memorandum dated 6-6-22 from the Village Utilities Director to the
Village Planner indicates that the developers Application for Variance dated 1/27/22 has
been withdrawn. Please explain: 1) why was the Variance withdrawn? 2) does the
proposed project have a larger impervious area that the existing 300 Building? 2) how
will the storm water be accommodated? Please explain the engineering design of and
how the proposed storm water retention system operates 3) What will be the resulting
storm water impact to the other existing buildings along Beach Rd.? 4) What is the
status of the review and execution of the "Utilities Developer Agreement'? Has it been
executed? Will the Board make any approval subject to and conditional to the mutual
execution of the Utilities Agreement?
Page 65-69: A Preliminary Drainage Report was prepared by Keshavarz dated 1 /25/22
and revised 5/11/22. Please explain the last paragraph in this Report that states:
"The Palm Beach County (PBC) representatives indicated that the drainage design
considering a pre and post development runoff analysis was acceptable assuming that
the post development discharge from the project was less that the predevelopment
discharge. Also, PBC indicated that the standard drainage connection criteria will not be
applied to this project".
Obviously, the post development discharge will not be able to be determined until the
project is complete. What happens if the post discharge is greater than the pre
discharge? Who is responsible for measuring and confirming this discharge? If the post
discharge is greater is the developer responsible for correcting the design to meet the
proper code requirements?
Why will the PBC drainage connection criteria not be applied to the proposed project? Is
this a normal/typical ruling? Who made the ruling? Was it in writing? What is the
difference between the PBC requirements and the proposed design? Is the PBC more
or less stringent than the proposed design? Was the reason for the Variance the
developer originally requested subsequently withdrawn based on the PBC drainage
criteria not being applied?
2